I don't blame you for rolling your eyes Gwyl, the only potential upside when compared to PPS5 from a heritage point of view is that what heritage hooks there are are now in one shortish document with everything else.... it'll save on printing if nowt else :face-approve:

Perhaps one for the curators/planning archaeologists amongst you..... Within the system as it now stands, would I have grounds for opposing a planning application or contesting the granting of permission if I could show that the developer/planning authority had not taken 'heritage' into account as a material consideration...?

With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...

Kevin - I would say so, yes, if there is a genuine heritage issue, but I'd get in touch with the relevant curator first - they should be fighting that battle and there may have been all sorts of long negotiations and strategies going on the background that might explain how a seemingly undesirable situation had come to be.

Serpentine I totally agree that there may be long and complex discussions or trade offs involved in decision making regards heritage issues and planning. I was thinking more along the lines where currently an HER is not accessible or where there is no planning archaeologist in place and when it could be easily shown that that the planning process had not considered heritage as a material issue. The CBA intend to write to local authorities who have suspended or closed their HER (Merseyside and Tees are quoted as examples), but I was thinking that maybe more positive action might be required to bring their planning procedures into line with the new advice......i.e objections to granted permissions!

With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...

At first glance and without having looked at the details, I would say that an objection is valid if it evident that the LPA has failed to consider whether significant and demonstrable harm outways the benefits of the application [SIZE=2]when assessed against the Local Plan or, if a Local Plan is not in place, against policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, which include the historic environment.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]I would read this as the LPA cannot simply ignore the historic environment, ie it is a material consideration in general planning terms, but they only need establish there is no significant and demonstrable harm, and only then relative to the benefits of the scheme, ie have they sufficient information to balance harm v benefit, which could be relatively simple, even if the heritage consequences are 'exceptional' or 'wholly exceptional', provided the applicant has made sure the benefits justifies the ends, ie sustainable development and economic growth. Also this test seems to allow LPAs greater latitude on whether archaeology is a material consideration in relation to individual applications, as the requirement that harm must be 'demonstrable' sugests to me they are unable to take into account presumed or predicted archaeological remains. The question is, does this now put LPAs in a position where they must strictly adhere to policies for pre-determination evaluation, and, if so we might have alighted on the first of many unintended consequences ? Sadly this may simply be a rhetorical question where LPAs have already dispensed with the services of archaeological planning advisors.
[/SIZE]

Seems as if the NPPF will allow us to continue the debate started by PPS5 regarding undefined terms - having provided definitions for terms such as 'significance' and 'setting', PPS5 then introduced a distinction between developments that resulted in 'substantial harm' and those that resulted in 'less than substantial harm' without providing any guidance on how these terms should be interpreted. This has led to umpteen disagreements with EH, local authority curators etc. over what criteria should be used for this, i.e. at what point does the harm become substantial?

The NPPF continues to use these terms - the only advance on PPS5 is that the NPPF (para. 138) implies that the loss of a single building within a Conservation Area may (or not) be treated as 'substantial harm'.

I predict a fat guidance document to accompany the heritage part of the NPPF (thereby restoring the verbiage that the NPPF was supposed to eliminate), along with lots of work for planning lawyers and for heritage consultants in the development of decisions, case law etc.

P Prentice Wrote:the biggest shame is the equivical relationship between designated and non-designated heritage assets - loop hole or what

But wasn't that ever the case. PPG16 for example described 'designated or non-designated heritage assets' in the format of national, regional and local importance.....meaninless in empirical terms, but obviously useful enough to keep us ticking over for 20+ years!!

With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...

Kevin (notwithstanding that discussion has moved on a bit) - oh, I see. I am not sure whether a right to challenge exists but persistent enquiries may help with the wider issue you are actually aiming at. My understanding is that axing these services automatically places the relevant authorities in a position of non-compliance and that that is the gist of the CBA and IfA responses (possibly also ALGAO?). Obviously Unit will disagree, but without an in-house curator who's to say whether any pre-determination work is adequate consideration, even if Ken's point about forcing such work is followed to the letter?

I'd like to respond more sagely but it's late and I've been in the sun all day.

serpentine Wrote:Kevin (notwithstanding that discussion has moved on a bit) - oh, I see. I am not sure whether a right to challenge exists but persistent enquiries may help with the wider issue you are actually aiming at. My understanding is that axing these services automatically places the relevant authorities in a position of non-compliance and that that is the gist of the CBA and IfA responses (possibly also ALGAO?). Obviously Unit will disagree, but without an in-house curator who's to say whether any pre-determination work is adequate consideration, even if Ken's point about forcing such work is followed to the letter?

I'd like to respond more sagely but it's late and I've been in the sun all day.

They wouldn't necessarily need to be in house, onlythat they have 'access'. I do remember working in a county a few years ago where they had gotten rid of the curators from the payroll, but brought them back in as consultants. The ex-county was rubbing his hands as he was charging them triple what his old wage was :face-approve: